Newsweek Op-Ed: In Defense Of The LSAT

Following up on Monday's post, ABA Council Votes 20-1 To Advance Proposal Permitting Law Schools To Go Test Optional. What Are The Implications Of Admitting Students Who Don't Take The LSAT Or GRE?:  

Newsweek Op-Ed:  In Defense of the LSAT, by Clayton Kozinski (J.D. 2017, Yale; Lehotsky Keller, Washington, D.C.):

Standardized aptitude tests have once again come under fire, as last Friday the American Bar Association (ABA) took another step toward eliminating the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). LSAT antagonists claim they oppose the test because it is not an objective measure of aptitude. The truth is, they resist it for the exact opposite reason. They are not anti-LSAT so much as they are anti-objectivity. They would prefer to scrub all objective measures of aptitude from the law school application process so they can continue to balance school rosters according to their social and political preferences. ...

The LSAT is far from the final target. Next on the chopping block are grades and class rankings themselves. Many universities instituted some form of pass/fail grading during the pandemic, and the discussion about whether to preserve the practice indefinitely is already under way. Grades and rankings must go because objective measures of in-school performance do not bode well for students mismatched from their peers by unfair affirmative action-driven admissions programs. Ultimately, LSAT opposition only makes sense if social activists ultimately try to rig the entire system—which, of course, is the goal.

Objective benchmarks are good. The LSAT is not perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than whatever alchemy its opponents want to replace it with. High-quality law schools should ignore the ABA, as many in the legal world have done for some time already, and continue requiring applicants to take the LSAT as part of the admissions process.